Joku_

Iraqi war surely has been pointless, at least with current goals and the way it has been done. Though I don't really mind if US attacks some 3rd world countries as long as it doesn't have ill effects on other western countries. I have a rather Machiavellistic attitude towards war: there should be some benefit (for a country participating in it) from it, otherwise it's pointless. For a defensive war the benefit could be maintaining sovereignity, or in US's case WMD, changing government or oil. And btw, I also consider war as diplomacy's extension, not necessarily a failure. Â If reason was WMD, the war surely was pointless. If it was changing government, actions during occupation were somewhat inappropriate. For example, they shouldn't have fired all bathists and iraqi army but just put somebody more obedient guy than Saddam in power. After that, get out as soon as Saddam is found. Iraqi army could also have been used to maintain order instead of US troops. This would have resulted in smaller US (and UK) casualties and not piss off iraqis so much. If oil was motive, US could have done things quite similarly until capturing Saddam. After that they could have withdrawn most troops and just guard oil related facilities from bases in deserts and pump oil like hell. Â

I thought that Israel conquered West bank in some war that arabs started? So would this mean that West bank is legally part of Israel? Â Apparently I was then partially wrong.

For some reason people seem to accept a lot more from palestinian side than from Israel's side. Israel at least tries to target terrorists but palestinians just want to kill as many israeli civilians as they can. I consider palestinians the most barbaric and racistic nation in the world, a nation which really can be considered as a terrorist nation. What would happen if palestinians would be in Israels position? Most likely they would immediately start a war and slaughter all israelis they can find. They would probably celebrate in the streets while mutilating dead Israeli bodies. And I doubt they would accept any peace as long as Israel still exists. In my opinion, Israel is struggling for its existence (though at this point they are the strongest nation in the area). There are hundreds of millions of muslims nearby which all want to exterminate all Jewish people. Israel's neigbors have started several wars to destroy Israel, but fortunately they have failed. In 1948 several muslim countries attacked Israel to destroy it and slaughter its people (if I remember correctly, they openly said that its their goal). Since they failed, palestinians have been trying to do that with terrorism, and UN's support. Without US's support Israel would probably have been already annihilated and if US ever decides to cease support for Israel, Europeans and arabs will probably put sanctions to Israel which would probably result in Israel's destruction. I don't think there will be ever peace until other side has been exterminated, so the wall is the only way to even calm down the situation.

Btw, I think that sensivity to civilian casualties is the main reason why guerilla warfare is nowadays so effective. And yes, I was mostly joking but it is true that defeating insurgency would be far easier without peace movements, UN and TV-reporters. If americans said that they won't go until a certain number has surrendered or given their arms, they might do it to prevent themselves and their friends being starved..

Btw, it seems that most european people are pro-palestinian. I don't know much of other countries medias, but at least Finnish media tends to be heavily pro-palestinian (especially YLE, the Finnish national TV-company). For example, in YLE's news when there was a suicide attack against a bus full of israelis, there was a shortish description of it and shortly afterwards pictures of crying palestinians and story about what wrong israelis have done to them. I don't really remember seeing any interviewing some israeli who has lost his family member in a suicide attack. That can almost be considered as palestinian propaganda and its certainly not objective. I don't know know about Swedish media but I would guess that they are far more pro-palestinian..

In my opinion palestinians as a nation have gone mad. Getting own independent state wouldn't be enough for them, they won't rest until Israel has been destroyed. Besides, when palestinians started their intifada (=terror campaign) Israel's prime minister offered quite good terms in peace progress. So I think that the wall is only way to peace. If I remember correctly, Israel occupied West bank in some war after arab countries attacked it. So technically West bank would be legally part of Israel?

I meant that they wouldn't even try to control Iraq, but to just bombard querillas and do some raids and try to make unwanted government's life extremely difficult. If they stay out of cities, they could guard southern oil fields and pipelines and some oil harbor. Guerilla attacks could be made more difficult by blocking roads from all civilian traffic near oil fields. Though this might require a bit more troops, maybe something like 40K->50K. This style approach would be far cheaper and probably result in less casualties. If things would go well, it might even result in some profit from oil. Sure, that's immoral but so what? Btw, I think that it would be fairly easy to defeat an insurgent city like Fallujah if you wouldn't have to care about civilian casualties: 1. Siege city and let no-one go in or out (not even red cross) 2. Bombard the city's civilian infrastructure, especially water purification plants and food storages 3. Wait until they surrender or die to starvation Â

Because if they partially stay there they can control the situation a bit and prevent unwanted governments coming into power. And its also easier to raid terrorist camps. In addition to this, if US kept bases in Iraq, there would be no need for them in Saudi-arabia or Kuwait. This makes my solution very cost-efficient when compared to full occupation. Btw, they also could occupy oil fields and harbor and fund military operations with oil money.

If resistance in Iraq is so widespread, there's probably no way to stop it anymore. (at least without doing a massive genocide) So it probably would be best if americans would get out of there and let iraqis clear the mess, theres no point in losing men for nothing. Americans could also occupy couple bases for example in southern iraq at sea and somewhere in desert near bagdad and keep about 20000-30000 soldiers in them. Guerilla attacks shouldn't be a threat to bases in desert if they keep about 10 km safe zone to prevent mortar attacks.